Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Shenanigans

If an argument concerning the rules is going on (2 players, a player arguing in the face of a GM ruling, etc.) and it begins to bore any person at the table or watching the game, that party may call Shenanigans.

When Shenanigans is called, a stopwatch or timer is started. Parties involved in the dispute have 3 minutes to state their case and come to a mutual agreement. After that, the decision is made randomly. The decision of the dice must be obeyed, even if someone believes it directly contradicts the official rules.

If a party is painfully aggrieved by a decision made during the game, s/he will receive a "playing in protest" coupon for a metagame reward after the game at the expense of the other players--usually in the form of beer, ice cream or shots of Jager in whatever quantities will get him/her to shut up and roll. However, thereafter the other players are entitled to mock the player during the next session (only), though the rate must be no higher than a single one-liner per player.

13 comments:

I think I understand what you're trying to say here, but I'm not sure I completely agree...The basic "Shenanigans" idea is good, because what it seems to be saying is "Boring your fellow players is bad". I can see that people might need to be reminded of that every now and then. When you call Shenanigans you're just giving a friendly reminder: "Guys, we're supposed to be having fun and not arguing about rules, right?". (That's how I see it, anyway.)

However, I can't agree with the rest of it. If you find someone that will argue about a game decision for 3 minutes...Why are you playing with them? Isn't it a sign that there's some sort of personality conflict in the group? Especially if they're "painfully aggrieved" by a game decision. That sounds like they're not enjoying the game...or perhaps what they really enjoy is arguing and disrupting the game for everyone else. Don't bribe/mock them; ask them what their problem is, or just don't ask them back to the game.

This is BY FAR the greatest innovation in the recent history of RPGs. IMX, even the most sociable (and socially well-adjusted) gamers will still gripe and niggle over petty points on occasion. Mostly because, hey, we're smart people and we like to show off how clever we are. Plus, I've played with more than one philosophy major. All of those guys are just seconds away from whipping out their proverbial penises and laying them on the table. Sheesh. On a not-unrelated note, I see this rule being especially effective in the mostly-female games that I run. Whereas--and I know I'm generalizing here--most male gamers will happily rules-lawyer stuff all day long, most women seem to just want to get on with the game, story, etc.

I was thinking of something similar recently - a parody of WotC's new cards to be called "Unfortunately Cards". Example: "Unfortunately, you've been accused of railroading. You must randomly generate dX amount of random encounters/game hooks by the next session." or "Unfortunately, this player is a rules lawyer..." etc. I like the idea of tools like these to resolve such issues - it might take the sting out of criticism and get people playing again. Though I suppose there's the danger of some freak metagaming the metagame somehow.

Excellent. I have had fewer *rules* arguments in the B/X game than my brother gets running more complex games but if I apply this rule about general arguments at the table about things like the ethics of torture and the creature's rights of kobolds, I think I'll have a lot more fun.

I strongly encourage incentivizing players screwing themselves. That is-- if you invoke some flaw or reason why your character falls down the stairs/runs away in terror/whatever/as a player make a choice that harms your character but is dramatically appropriate-- then you should be rewarded.